Single-judge High Court dismissed a writ petition regarding family pension claim, holding the case was not maintainable as the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7217 of 2021
Petitioner :- Imran Khan Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahabir Yadav,Najakat Ali,Ram Awtar
Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
Father of the petitioner was working in Railway Department on the post of CTNC. His father has retired on 11.09.2003 and has died on 21.09.2013. The petitioner is claiming family pension.
A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable as the railway organization is notified under Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Accordingly, petitioner has statutory alternative remedy of filing of original application before Central Administrative Tribunal.
Since, there is statutory alternative remedy of filing of original application under the Act, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 14.7.2021 S.Sharma
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition claiming family pension is maintainable given the existence of a statutory alternative remedy under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Imran Khan
Union Of India
Other 1
Other 2
Other 3
Saral Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
